Following the ancient path of Jesus. Living as an expression of God’s love here and now.

Blacksoil

Jesus of history or Christ of faith?

August 11th, 2008

An old college friend of mine recently found me on facebook and asked if I could direct her to some books about Jesus from a secular perspective, Jesus as a political figure. My response was as follows:

So nice to hear from you. Of course I’m not offended that you want to start with the secular. But I have to let you know that personally I think the attempt to divide the “Christ of faith” from the “Jesus of history” are nonsensical. The bottom line is that the best historical documents about Jesus of Nazareth are the gospels. There’s not much else out there about him other than a handful on non-canonical “gospels,” (which scholarly consensus date much later than the biblical gospels and letters), and the writings of the Jewish Roman historian Josephus (c. 70CE), who has more to say about the budding new Christian movement than Jesus himself.

So if you want to know about the historical Jesus, your best sources are actually the gospels. Now, obviously, these written not as straight history, but with a view to inciting faith in this Jesus cat, as both Luke and John state explicitly. So you have to decide for yourself going in what you are going to buy into and what you are going to discount. The problem of course, is that if you decide that you are going to discount anything that doesn’t fit with your view of who Jesus could have been, then you will only come out the other side with the same view of Jesus that you went in with. Most “secular” scholars are pretty guilty of this; their methodology predetermines the Jesus that they find in the gospels. The Marxists find a class revolutionary, the nihilist find a Cynic philosopher, the liberals find a Jesus who just wants us to be nice and get along, etc.

The other thing that makes this Jesus/Christ split seem untenable to me is that if you take even half of the stuff in the gospels as accurate, then Jesus clearly believed in something called the “kingdom of God” and he clearly believed that what he was doing was bringing that kingdom. He saw himself–the events of his teaching, healings, justice-bringing, community-building, his wrongful arrest, torture, and execution (and resurrection, but obviously you’re not willing to go there)–as standing at the center of the coming of God’s kingdom on earth. If he was wrong about all that, then the rest of his teachings either a) don’t make sense (i.e., pacifism only makes sense if there really is a just God who will one day make all things right) or b) aren’t really that interesting (lots of people have said we should love our neighbors and give to the poor). Plus, he was a megalomaniac on par with Manson or David Koresh, so who would want to listen to his teaching anyway?

That said, if what you’re asking me for is a treatment of Jesus by someone who doesn’t believe he was the Messiah or the Son of God, then I would suggest John Dominic Crossan’s Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. He has all kinds of crazy s?*% in there about dogs eating Jesus’ body and whatnot, but I think his portrait of Jesus as a countercultural barrier-breaker and justice-bringer is quite accurate. Marcus Borg is good along these lines too, though his Jesus doesn’t have quite as much bite as Crossan’s; he’s more of a mystical rather than social revolutionary.

But there are also Christians who believe that Jesus was a bad*ss and a radical too, you know. My personal favorite is NT Wright. He is considered one of the premier New Testament scholars in the world by believers and non-believers alike, despite being seen as controversial by both. Like me, he holds that the bad*ss, radical Jesus doesn’t make sense unless you believe the kingdom of God stuff; and likewise, the kingdom of God stuff only makes sense if Jesus’ ministry had a political element to it. I would recommend The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is, or Who Was Jesus? He also has a new book out that I’m reading right now which is more about the idea of resurrection than it is about Jesus directly, but it explains why the hope of resurrection is not the same as common conceptions of heaven and why it should lead is to be social and political activists. It’s called Surprised by Hope.

Probably more than you wanted to know. Sorry. As you can see, I haven’t gotten shorter-winded or less opinionated over the years. Hope one of these books will help you find the Jesus you’re looking for…and the Jesus that’s looking for you.

Jeremy

Following Christ in Consumer Culture

May 27th, 2008

We have just finished a five week series at our worship gathering on Following Christ in a Consumer Culture. Part of what I wanted to do with this series was get beyond thinking about materialism as the problem. Materialism (by which Christians usually mean greed and lust for things) is, of course, A problem in a consumer economy, but I don’t think it’s THE problem.

I just started reading Vincent Miller’s excellent book Consuming Religion, which I would highly recommend to anyone trying to think through these issues. One point he makes, which he sees as critical to any Christian response to consumerism, is that it’s not about an alternate set of values. The problem isn’t that consumerism offers us a set of values and beliefs in conflict with the values and beliefs of the gospel. The problem is that the way consumerism trains us to relate to values and beliefs. In a consumer culture values and beliefs become commodities. They are detached from tradition, community, and practice. As such, they lose power to impact the way we live. We might take resurrection for example. How many Christians believe (in their heads at least) in resurrection and yet in practice relate to their bodies and the creation in more gnostic ways?

As such, Miller argues, responses to consumer focused on ideas (theology/values/etc.) will be inadequate since consumerism is so adept at absorbing even the harshest criticism and turning it into a commodity. (He uses the example of Barnes & Noble’s recent campaign to sell copies of Marx’s Communist Manifesto on its anniversary). An adequate response will be focused instead on practices, practices embedded in tradition.

Miller’s argument seems pretty compelling to me. And it presents quite a challenge to those of us in the emergent/missional church movement who are prone to making a patchwork quilt from practices from various Christian traditions. (E.g., our description of Blacksoil’s worship gathering says you are likely to encounter Greek Orthodox liturgy next to a Johnny Cash song). Are emergent/missional churches unwittingly fostering consumerism in our worshipers? Can our worship (and the rest of our church life) be eclectic and multi-traditional without caving to consumerism? What other practices outside of worship do we need to doing to resist consumerism? What do you think?

The ever elusive gospel

October 16th, 2007

 THis is EMily, I”m writing from Bangladesh…

I’ve been experiencing at the heart level different religions and lifestyles, Islam in Bangladesh and Bhuddism and Hinduism in Nepal, and it is confusing and scary and wonderful at the same time. Confusing because I see bits of Truth in all these religions and these are real people who are sincere in their beliefs and they are trying to be good people and I don’t know what “good news” to them would be. Scary because in a more complicated world there are no easy answers for anybody, even conventional “Christian” answers don’t seem sufficient and seem insensative to the deep history and faith of other religions. Wonderful because I’m seeing God as so much bigger than I let him be. I am in a state of confusion about whether these people play a part in the Kingdom of God, conventional wisdom tells me no, but one look into thier eyes and thier suffering and thier faith in whatever “god” and thier desire to love others and I am left speechless.

    I feel like all I know is that the gospel we had doesn’t do the job, but I don’t feel equipped with another gospel. I just feel speechless. Sometimes I feel like I have words from the Spirit on some occasions that might or might not lead people to Jesus, like little pebbles of truth, but that’s about it.
    We’ve been talking alot in Blacksoil about the need for a different gospel, as oppsosed to the one of our evangelical brothers and sisters which tends to miss much of what it means to be a Christian in an attempt to summarize and simplify.
    After getting to know individuals of different faiths, I am beginning to think that Good News is different for everybody depending on their spiritual, cultural, historical and family background. That is an overwhelming task, just trying to create a way to explain the Gospel to out neightbors in Lansing that does justice to all the wonders and complexities of being a follower of Jesus and member of the Kingdom of God is daunting enough.
     And when I try to think of how I would explain following Jesus to my Muslim friends, I feel at a loss of words because there are no ready-to-go ways of conversion that I can pull out of my pocket and easily explain for a people who have such a deep history with God. It is so complicated because to allow Jesus to draw himself to them, I need to respect their deep spirituality that already exists  and which holds many Truths God can build from to bring them into deeper relationship with himself. 
    I don’t think God sees this Muslim community as  “unsaved” in the way we usually understand the term - unspiritual, disconnected from God - I think he sees them as part of his redemption project, a people who are trying to communicate with him in a incomplete way, a people who are missing a key component of thier faith, a people who worship Him without fully knowing his character and a people who are trying to do God’s will in this world without a complete vision of the Kingdom of God.
     So what words do I have for them? Muslims are already so skeptical of Jesus, of Christians, both sides are so incredibly misunderstood by eachother. And I think Christians need to be sensative of our bad reputation of incomplete gospels people have heard, of false witness. Pretending that the bad feelings arent there doesn’t help, pretending that the misconceptions don’t exist.
    I guess my hope is to continue conversations we’ve had before. I’m wondering what people have learned experimenting with a new gospel in Lansing?
   

Following Jesus-This isn’t the “Health & Wealth” Gospel

April 19th, 2007

   In Mark 14, Jesus allows himself to be betrayed, arrested, falsely accused, spit on and beaten. The whole book of Mark up to this point shows Jesus acting with power and authority. Author Henri Nouwen notes,  “After years of teaching, preaching, healing, and moving to wherever he wanted to go, Jesus is handed over to the caprices of his enemies. Things are now no longer done by him, but to him.” (And it gets worse- next Jesus is flogged, crowned with thorns, mocked, stripped, and nailed naked to a cross.)

   Can following Jesus include facing evil’s attacks? The gospel writer John sees some who followed Jesus right into the attacking hands of evil doers. In Revelation 6:9-11 John sees those who died being faithful to Jesus, crying out, ‘How long, O Lord until you demonstrate your justice? How long until you judge evil doers and avenge our blood?’ And the answer given to them is intended not only for them, but for those who are still following the Lamb. The answer given is “until more martyrs are killed.”

   Darrell Johnson, faculty at Regent College, writes “this fifth seal is revealing one of the Church’s roles in the world: to declare the good news of Jesus’ reign that the Lamb is on the throne. And then to choose to absorb the suffering that comes when His reign collides with greed and pride and racism and nationalism. (His Kingdom clashes with other kingdoms, flushing out evil and meeting resistance). The mystery is, that in absorbing the suffering the Kingdom comes.”

How is it that any Jesus follower is able to endure suffering?

-Julie R.

Bono at NAACP Image Awards

March 8th, 2007

[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=ENp7c6TtBHk]

What Does it Mean to Be in Mission “Together”?

February 9th, 2007

One of the kinks we’ve been working out at Blacksoil as we continue this project in doing church in a new way is the question of corporate mission or corporate calling. More specifically: what does it look like for a body, a church, a group of Jesus-followers to be in mission together?

The GOCN’s fifth indicator of a missional church is that it “seeks to discern God’s specific missional vocation for the entire community and for all its members.” I should say that part of what I assume “specific missional vocation of the community” to mean in our context is that our neighborhood groups will discern some sustained activity that each group member will participate in and contribute to in some form. So for example, if the group discerns that God is calling it to feed the hungry in our neighborhood, perhaps not everyone will directly serve food; some might fundraise money for the supplies, some will cook, some might pray over the ministry, some will just engage in conversation with those who get fed. But everyone in the group will be participating and contributing in some way, on the basis of individual gifts and calling.

Some folks in our neighborhood group have raised concerns that if you define the group’s calling too narrowly–”Our mission is to feed the hungry people in the area”–that you might loose sight of the Church’s broad mission: to be in Christ, and to call others to be in Christ. Another concern was raised: If only one project or activity is discerned, what if I don’t want to do that? (Maybe I don’t like feeding hungry people.)

On the one hand, these are valid concerns. A body that defines it self by doing rather than by being is in danger of getting off-track. To use the big theological words, the church must primarily be defined ontologically, and secondarily defined missionally. And of course its true that there is always power in any human relations and, therefore, some danger of imposing one person’s agenda on other in the group.

But on the other hand, in our consumer culture it seems we are much more likely to fall in a ditch on the other side of the road. We elevate the individual and his/her ability to do whatever she wants whenever she wants, and we don’t tend to think of groups or communities as having value (other than meeting the needs of the individual). But the biblical picture of churches–a human body–is so much more interdependent and interconnected than that.

So what does it look like for a group to be involved in mission together (in a way that’s substantially different enough from traditional American churches to warrant a label like “missional”)? How specifically does the calling need to be defined? (E.g., Is “loving people in the name of Christ” specific enough?) And how high does the level of commitment need to be from each member of the group?

In Defense of my $3 Latte

December 20th, 2006

A guy that I used to work with once gave me this article about the coffeeshop phenomenon and how foolish my generation is for spending $3 a day on lattes and mochas. The article had a bunch of math that demonstrated that if the average 25-year-old took all the money that he or she would spend on coffee and muffins and put it into a mutual fund or some such thing that he or she could retire a millionaire.

Now, I’m all for delayed gratification and for any kind of curbing of the consumeristic tendencies most of us Americans have. But I think that there are really good, maybe even ethical, reasons that people are willing to drop $3 on a cup of coffee. And, as someone who spends a good chunk of his work-week in coffeeshops, I feel qualified to explicate them:

1) The quality issue. A foundational tenet of our culture is that more is always better. Our automatic impulse is to get as much as we can for our money, without thinking about what a good amount to have is or what the true cost of cheap products is. The creation story in Genesis says that everything that God made was “very good.” If that’s true it seems that those of us trying to participate in God’s redemptive work should value quality over quantity and appreciate things that are made well. Rob, the owner of the Caffe (where all my mutual fund money is going), is a craftsman. He knows every detail of every aspect of making a good cup of coffee. I’d rather my money went to him than whatever machine fills the 5-lb. cans of coffee at Meijer.

2) The justice issue. The higher the quality of a coffee bean the more likely that it was produced and traded justly and sustainably. Many of the roasts at high-quality coffeeshops are actually certified by independent agencies as Fair Trade, Organic, and/or Shade-Grown. The Scriptural mandates to defend the oppressed and not exploit the poor are innumerable. And the bible also makes it clear that God loves his creation and expects us humans to steward it well. So I’m willing to pay more for coffee that I know was produced without exploiting the workers who made it or damaging the land that yielded it.

3) The community issue. As our culture has become more and more commercial, there has been a reduction in what sociologists call “third places,” places to be that are neither home nor work/commerce. There is no more concept of a commonwealth, a social gathering place that belongs to everyone. Coffeeshops are places where one can go and, for minimal “rent,” spend several hours in a public place talking, working, or relaxing. At Rob’s Caffe people actually introduce themselves, the regulars invite newcomers into existing conversations, and the baristas literally hug people when they leave. There are few other places left where this kind of interaction happens.

(Side note: Churches were once considered part of public space–Google “the Nolli plan” to see a map–left unlocked and open to all. Now they are the private property of religious organizations. It’s interesting that many emerging churches are choosing to meet in coffeeshops and other third places.)

So, I’m sure if I were drinking Folger’s from Wal-mart at home alone, I could have stashed a few more dollars in my mutual fund, but for now at least, I’d rather invest in quality, justice, and community.

Posted by Jeremy

From Transformation to Community to Mission to Transformation to…

December 18th, 2006

In our neighborhood group we have been exploring and discussing Scripture and other resources to help each other get a handle on our five values. The one we’re talking about right now is Community.

My friend Emily (who is a part of the group) gave me an article by Henri Nouwen, entitled “From Solitude to Community to Ministry,” that I really appreciated. In it Nouwen sites Luke 6, in which Jesus spends the night alone in prayer, then calls the 12 apostles, and then goes out healing people and sharing the good news. The pattern that Nouwen is advocating for being a Jesus-follower is one that begins with solitude moves to community and culminates in ministry.

Though he uses different language, Nouwen hits on three of Blacksoil’s five values (Transformation, Community, & Mission), and does a wonderful job of drawing out the connections between them.

I was especially struck by his comments on Community. He jokes, “Community is the place where the person you least want to live with always lives.” My own experience of community–in marriage, parenting, and church–is that it is hard. It has nothing to do with our idealized images of monasteries and communes. (I sometimes fantasize about living in an intentional community that, in my head, is something like The Real World meets a sustainable farming co-op. It’s sexy, socially-conscious, and everyone who lives there always wants to listen to music from my CD collection.) The reason it’s so hard, of course, is that people are sinners. And the closer our relationship is with someone, the more their sin can hurt us.

At the end of the day though, I think community is so difficult not because of other people. In fact, I think that “the person you least want to live with” is actually yourself, and community is hard because it make the real you inescapable. Nouwen notes that the people who live in his community know him so well they cannot be impressed by the fact that he is a famous author or that he has several degrees. Because when you engage in real community with someone, what really impacts them is your quality as a human being. Your ability to give and receive love. That is the real you and you must face up to the real you every time you wound or disappoint the other. To combine a quote from Sartre with one from my wife: “Hell is other people, because other people are a mirror.”

This is, of course, why forgiveness and grace are so important. And that brings us back to the beginning of Nouwen’s chain: solitude. When we get alone with God we soak up the good news he has for us that we are forgiven and loved. And when we do that, we can reengage in community, bringing that grace to our own shortcomings as well as others’.

Posted by Jeremy

Hard to Swallow

December 16th, 2006

My four-year-old had his tonsils and adenoids removed this week and his recovery from the surgery has been pretty rough. (Not like on the Brady Bunch, where they looked forward to getting their tonsils out so they could eat ice cream for a week.)

It’s been tough for me to heed my own words in the post below, as I have watched him suffer day after day. However, I think that something of the heart of God and the mystery of the Trinity has been revealed to me through this experience.

1) I have wanted to take his pain away, to somehow literally suffer in his place. This must be something of what God’s fatherly love caused him to feel that resulted in the incarnation and Jesus going to the cross in our stead.

2) I have thought several times that to watch my son suffer is worse than suffering myself. (Now, if I ever get my tonsils removed you can ask me if that’s true!) But I glimpsed something of the meaning of “God so loved the world that world that he gave his only Son.” A hint of the gravity of the “so.” How much of a sacrifice it was for the Father to offer up his Son to the suffering of the cross.

Of course, it is a great mystery how God is on all sides of this interaction (Father, sacrifice, punisher), but I feel that having lived the father’s part, I’m a tiny bit closer to understanding “the love of Christ that surpasses all understanding.”

Posted by Jeremy

Pain as Provision

December 11th, 2006

This weekend Blacksoil finished our exploration of the story of Jonah by looking at the final chapter, 4. One of the things I taught about was the meaning of the plant that God provides Jonah and then takes away from him.

The funny thing is, it never says that God takes the plant away from him. It says that God “provides” him with a worm to kill the plant, and then “provides” him with a scorching east wind to make him so hot he feels faint. Even the subtraction of the plant is told in terms of addition. Taking it away is something that God gives Jonah.

This morning, I was talking with my uncle, who is a substance abuse counselor, and he was saying how part of his job as a counselor is to let people experience their pain. Sometimes in group sessions people will share until it starts to get painful and then they will tell him to go on to the next person, and he will say, “I’ll move on to the next person when I’m good and ready.”

In our culture, which is so focussed on consuming and aquiring things and avoiding or anesthetizing pain, it is difficult for us to see loss and pain as something good, as coming from God. One of the things I appreciate about the Reformed tradition is that its emphasis on the sovereignty of God means that it relativizes other causes (Satan, human sin, nature, etc.) in relationship to the agency of God.

Now, I know that this is a complex issue (I’m mindful of the questions Bill Mallonee poses in his song “Resplendent”: “How much of this was meant to be? How much the work of the Devil?…How much of this is failing flesh? How much the course of retribution?”) and we get on very thin ice when we get too close to “blaming” God for evil.

But, most of us American consumers need to be more willing to see the pain and loss in our lives as God’s provision, a gift from God, and to do that we need to allow ourselves to see God as being ultimately responsible. Pain can be cathartic, it can be a natural part of healing, it can alert us that something is wrong, it can motivate change, it can increase our capacity for compassion. In a word, it can be redemptive. Remember that next time something hurts, and thank God.

Posted by Jeremy

« Previous Entries